JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Plenty of indications of fakery. Doug Horne of the ARRB explains it all for you here:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/horne-d1.1.1.html

Includes Chain of Custody questions and

Imagery

"Dino Brugioni opined during his July 9, 2011 interview with the author that the head explosion seen today in the extant Zapruder film is markedly different from what he saw on 11/23/63, when he worked with what he is certain was the camera-original film. The head explosion he recalls was much bigger than the one seen today in frame 313 of the extant film (going “three or four feet into the air”); was a “white cloud” that did not exhibit any of the pink or red color seen in frame 313 today; and was of such a duration that he is quite sure that in the film he viewed in 1963, there were many more frames than just one graphically depicting the fatal head shot on the film he viewed in 1963. Mr. Brugioni cannot, and does not, accept frame 313 of the extant Zapruder film as an accurate or complete representation of the fatal head shot he saw in the camera-original Zapruder film on the Saturday evening following President Kennedy’s assassination."

"Erwin Schwartz, Abraham Zapruder’s business partner, told interviewer Noel Twyman on November 21, 1994 that when he viewed the original film on Friday, November 22, 1963, he saw biological debris from the head explosion propelled to the left rear of the President when he viewed the film. This debris pattern is not visible on the film today, but dovetails with the consistent recollections of motorcycle officer Bobby W. Hargis, who was hit with great force at the time of the head shot by debris travelling to the left rear. "

"The extant Zapruder film also depicts a large head wound in the top and right side of President Kennedy’s skull – most notably in frames 335 and 337 – that was not seen by any of the treatment staff at Parkand Hospital. "

Nope. Sorry somebody saying "that is not how I remember it" is not a photo artefact in the film that suggests alteration.

You can't alter a film with the technology available at the time with out it leaving some observable trace in the film. You can't splice film, or paint cells, or cut, or edit, or place some image on top of another with the technology available at the time with out leaving physical evidence of this in the film itself.

You identify none of these things, none of the things you quoted me asking for. You only offer some guy saying what he thinks he remembers.

Show me a single frame with evidence the film was altered. One frame with an indication of mis matching grain or an overlayed image. Just one.

Otherwise care to explain how the film was altered with out evidence of alteration?

 

[JayUtah]

Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence cannot be authenticated...

Shifting the burden of proof for 100 pages now.

 

[JayUtah]

Nope. Sorry somebody saying "that is not how I remember it" is not a photo artefact in the film that suggests alteration.

But it's the same tune Robert has been singing for 100 pages now. The film "must be" (i.e., is inferred to be) fake because Robert simply prefers to give credence to the recollections of a few witnesses. What he lacks is proof anything was faked. He cannot distinguish between fact and inference, and attributes others' ability to do so to some surmised pig-headedness.

Contrary evidence may compel one to suspect that other evidence has been fabricated or tampered with. But that's the beginning of the investigation, not the end of it. In order to prove that hypothesis you still have to find proof of tampering or fabrication that stands on its own. When the contrary evidence is after-the-fact eyewitness testimony, in many cases decades old, it's far more parsimonious to conclude that the witness recollection is faulty. That's just how evidentiary conflicts like this stack up in the real world.

And Robert knows he lacks suitable proof, which is why he's always frantically trying to shift the burden of it. He hides his failure behind words like "authenticated" and ham-fistedly tries to bait his critics into accepting the burden for some supposed counterargument. But throughout the past 200 pages he has been unable to support his claim that the photographic evidence is fake. It is his claim, and it is an affirmative claim, and he has the burden of it. He knows he has nothing more now than he did the last two or three times he tried this argument, so he's just going to spin the thread for another 20 pages until he gets backed into a corner again and wanders off to pick up the Birther thread or something.

 

[vtbub]

Weakest fringe reset of the bunch.

.5 stars.

 

[BazBear]

Empty blather. Devoid of a single example.

Just look around the thread Robert, there are over 200 pages of examples. Pretending they're not there won't make them go away.

 

[Robert Prey]

Just look around the thread Robert, there are over 200 pages of examples. Pretending they're not there won't make them go away.

But you couldn't cite a single one.

 

[Robert Prey]

But throughout the past 200 pages he has been unable to support his claim that the photographic evidence is fake. .

Except for 40 plus medical witnesses whose testimony is in conflict with the alleged photo evidence, the bootleg copies in the public domain which cannot be authenticated.

 

[Tomtomkent]

But you couldn't cite a single one.

Many already have been, which is pretty much the point.

 

[LSSBB]

Except for 40 plus medical witnesses whose testimony is in conflict with the alleged photo evidence, the bootleg copies in the public domain which cannot be authenticated.

Please define "Medical Witness" for me.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Talking of people who can't cite things I am still waiting for post where I declare myself victorious, a post where I call myself a JFK scholar and the medical qualifications of some photographers...

 

[Robert Prey]

You keep using a plural to describe one person describing others.

Also witnesses are not evidence, their statements are only evidence when certain criteria are met..

The quote by one person describing a situation in which he and others saw a film for example, has which qualifications of evidence. Was it a statement made under oath? Or under caution in an official investigation? Have the others who saw the film offered testimony to this in a court of law?

Or is it just quote from some book?

No. It is direct testimony offered live on tape in the flesh. If someone told the Secret Service that someone had solicited an assassination, what do you think the Secret Service would do? Ignore it? Ditto a police chief, or a state prosecutor? Many, if not most crimes are adjudicated based on the testimony of witnesses. A witness is evidence. Deal with it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Except for 40 plus medical witnesses whose testimony is in conflict with the alleged photo evidence, the bootleg copies in the public domain which cannot be authenticated.

Which would prove 40 people have subjective opinions on a matter. It proves nothing about the content of the film.

 

[BazBear]

But you couldn't cite a single one.

My mistake, I forgot that citing the entire thread would exceed your one at a time limit.

 

[Robert Prey]

Please define "Medical Witness" for me.

A person who has some background, or experience in medical issues. Could be a doctor, nurse, medical technician, medical photo technician, x-ray technician, medical student, undertaker, etc.

You're welcome.

 

[Robert Prey]

Which would prove 40 people have subjective opinions on a matter. It proves nothing about the content of the film.

Then by your logic, everyone who has an opinion as to what the Z film shows, is merely a subjective opinion.

 

[JayUtah]

A person who has some background, or experience in medical issues. Could be a doctor, nurse, medical technician, medical photo technician, x-ray technician, medical student, undertaker, etc.

Or just some guy who picked up a piece of bone.

 

[JayUtah]

Then by your logic, everyone who has an opinion as to what the Z film shows, is merely a subjective opinion.

No, Robert, it's the fundamental difference between evidence which is subjective by its nature and evidence that is objective by its nature. There is no such thing as objective eyewitness testimony. As such it is always suspect, even if the witness has no malicious intent.

Again, you simply want to throw out evidence that is inherently more reliable than another kind, solely on the basis that the less reliable kind fits your preconception. You imagine how one trumps another, based on some argument of scope. But you deny entirely the inherent attributes of the different kinds of evidence. And what really takes the cake is that your rationale for throwing out more reliable evidence is entirely inferential. You have no actual imputation of its reliability. You just "need" it to be thrown out.

 

[LSSBB]

A person who has some background, or experience in medical issues. Could be a doctor, nurse, medical technician, medical photo technician, x-ray technician, medical student, undertaker, etc.

You're welcome.

Would that include naval personnel with no medical training?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Then by your logic, everyone who has an opinion as to what the Z film shows, is merely a subjective opinion.

A person is an opinon? No. They hold opinions.

As you clearly have trouble understanding how to tell subjective opinion and memory from objective data, let's get back on point:

Robert can you identify a single frame of the Z film with an artefact of alteration?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Would that include naval personnel with no medical training?

I think Robert may have been stundied for suggesting medical training is not a requirement for a professional medical opinion.